I do?
Hello.
I don’t get it.
“Viruses that have been tested here in recent times have not been detected”
you mean malwares right ? Or viruses ? These are completely different type of threats.
which tests ?
links should be usefull.
Viruses and malwares
Personal tests
Been better
I believe that the commitment to study to improve the heuristic would be important.
Attention to deliveries made by VirusTotal and others too.
“It seems that Comodo CEO, Melih, has other priorities.”
I do not agree with his statement , I think it’s clear vision in practice :
The purpose of Mission Trust in the Internet is visible in several of the products that COMODO offers everyone .
Many are accessible free of charge and allow the user to customize as much as possible.
Melih opens a space that is very important to discuss and improve the software , not because he did not answer certain topic means he changed the priority.
Imagine the number of requests , online customers who are protected by COMODO product or how many technologies , enhancements and fixes that have been released since the beginning.
“Viruses that have been tested here in recent times have not been detected.”
“I believe that the commitment to study to improve the heuristic would be important.”
Enhance mechanisms and heuristic is always important , I believe that it is vital in a time where malware , virus try to circumvent the protection using encryption techniques and even fake certificates…
It is understandable that sometimes threats can not be identified in the first instance , but in a general review on my experience COMODO has blocked many zero- day threats , and I see the effort to enhance the detection .
If you want to share samples of what was not detected, you can do it and see the response time to be launched new virus signatures.
If you have questions, report problems, feel free to participate 
Comodo has the auto-sandbox also for zero-day malware. Signatures are not a bad thing but they are not that reliable. Besides, in my experience Comodo AV is pretty good.
Let me quote Melih from several years ago :
:-TU
Well, let me guess, Melih. >:-D
If not currently being chauffeured in one of your 99 big black limousines:
you’ll probably be relaxing at one of your many luxurious swimming pools underneath giant palm trees, surrounded by beautiful women and long drinks, am I right? 8)
Just joking, of course. 
Cheers, REBOL. :a0
LOL…
It is an exotic ideal location Melih shares with us.
Just joking, of course. ;)Maybe I should add this to the wishlist. (:LGH)
And we get to sniff white powder of those tight bellies of those lovely young ladies… (:NRD)
What number should there be, Henrique? What would satisfy you? It’s clear Comodo isn’t living up to your standards. You should move on to something else. Why would you want to risk your security by using a “very poor” product?
Compare with Avira AntiVir database:
http://www.avira.com/pt-br/support-vdf-history
1600 definitions for day and CIS 82
very very poor
Most days this number is huge
just a couple days ago it was 28000
But it was on April 6 last …
And today ?
today was low but im sure it will be higher tomorrow
I am not bothered by detection percentages or related numbers. I trust my security with Default Deny/Sandbox rather than with a detection based solution. When CIS first was introduced as CIS 3.5 its detection capabilities where nowhere near where they are today nonetheless CIS always had my back and protected me.
But 82 database definitions is very low for today.
And recents last days is low to ?
In site Malwaretips the detection is very very low today.
Sandbox and upload suspected files is not guarantied.
That’s why I have my HIPS enabled as well. I always run Proactive Security configuration. Detection based solutions by definition run after the facts so I rather trust a solid proactive baseline to handle unknown files.
Not guarantied !
Upload files tested in the cloud may fail.
But the solution is good ( protection layers ).